ILNews

Opinions June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinions were issued Friday after IL deadline.

Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-789.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding that I.C. 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), the statute defining the offense of resisting law enforcement by fleeing after being ordered to stop, must be construed to require that a law enforcement officer’s order to stop be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On that basis, there was insufficient evidence against Gaddie to support the conviction.

Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding the evidence and reasonable inferences established Murdock knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer’s order to stop that was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana
49S04-1406-CR-416
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to accept or reject the plea agreement as written. Rules that the court lacked the authority under terms of the plea agreement to impose on the defendant one year of work release as a condition of probation following his 10-year sentence. The trial court was allowed to order probation after the defendant served his sentence but it could not impose punitive conditions like restrictive placement.

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
49S04-1402-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Finds based on the evidence the trial court could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been intoxicated in a public place while endangering the life of himself or others. Justices David and Rucker dissent.
   
June 30
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson and Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband and wife, and Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband and wife
60A01-1312-PL-518
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in judgment in favor of defendants, holding that Dennis Samples had not proven the court erred in finding the expansion of a dam on neighboring property encroached on his land or was a nuisance.

Anissa L. Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-PC-428
Post conviction. Reverses denial of post-conviction relief; vacates convictions of murder and Class A felony aiding, inducing or causing robbery; and remands for retrial, finding the court erred in determining that Tyler received effective assistance of counsel.

Doaa I. Ebrahim v. Essam Otefi (NFP)
76A03-1309-DR-368
Domestic. Affirms denial of Ebrahim’s motion for relief from judgment from the trial court’s dissolution of marriage decree.

Darcel Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms placement split between Department of Correction and work release on an eight-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Cheryl Rodriguez v. Sourthern Dunes Golf, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1307-PL-639
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Southern Dunes.

Bernard A. Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1311-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Katherine Fraze v. Floyd County Health Department, and City of New Albany and Animal Control (NFP)
22A04-1402-CC-62
Collection. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in favor of the city limiting the number of dogs Fraze could keep on her property.
 
Anthony Ray Willoughby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
In re: The Visitation of W.G.R. (Minor Child) M.W.R., Father v. K.G. and D.G., Maternal Grandparents (NFP)
78A01-1312-MI-540
Miscellaneous. Remands order for grandparent visitation for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 
Chad Thomas Gates v. Shannon Leigh Gates (NFP)
83A05-1401-DR-26
Domestic. Affirms trial court denial of father’s petition to modify custody.
 
Ralph Dennis Gabriel, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1311-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Robert Birk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-897
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.
 
James Pello v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-488
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Walter L. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1311-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B felony possession of cocaine.
 
Tyrone R. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1311-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
 
Stephan Gallagher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1301-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Brandon Scroggin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1306-CR-312
Criminal. Dismisses as untimely Scroggin’s appeal of convictions of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts, Class D felony counts of arson and intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Diamond Staples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Monday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opnions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT